A lot of these appear to be theoretical attacks, and have merely proof of concept attacks which are legal code but shouldn't "work".

Rings out 'planned obsolescence' scam if anything else. If its going to be blamed on cockamamie conspiracy theories such as evil governments or Israeli agents....this theory is far more plausible. Think about it, the last 10 years processor technology really hasn't advanced much....what better way to sell some chips & systems than a mass scare with patches that slow CPU predecessors to a crawl.....

Quote:

Originally Posted by mockingbird

I disagree.

AMD chips seem to be only vulnerable to localized attacks while Intel chips seem vulnerable to remote attacks...

An attack is an attack. This logic is like being 'almost pregnant'.... It doesn't fly. AMD doesn't get a pass if intel doesnt.

Intel whill increase the price of their cpus and new buyers will pay for the lawsuit, like it hapened with the pentium bug un 1994 and with the lies about the Pentium 4 performance.
And like they always do, they won't apologice and they'll say
"This things happens but our cpus are more expensive than the others because they are the best", well as long as the app tha is runing looks for the "Genuine Intel flag".
And don't forget about the Intel 6 series chipset sata problems, and the atom C2000 series...

A false sense of security is worse than no security at all, see --disclaimer

__________________
--- begin sig file ---

If you are new to this forum, we can help a lot more if you please post clear focused pictures (max resolution 2000x2000 and 2MB) of your boards using the manage attachments button so they are hosted here. Information and picture clarity compositions should look like this post.

We respectfully ask that you make some time and effort to read some of the guides available for basic troubleshooting. After you have read through them, then ask clarification questions or report your findings.

Please do not post inline and offsite as they slow down the loading of pages.

The problem is that AMD always play fair even when the first Phenon bug apeared they admited it and fixed it and admited the loss off performance.
But Intel always lies and bends the truth to their own god, and if that's not posible, pais money to anybody who can bend the truth for then, for example youtubers, and reviewers that only care about the money.

I saw their reply to one of the issues presented in their chips. They practically just waved a hand at it by saying it can't do much damage in your files or something. Then proceeded to say it's not unique to Intel chips.

Anyway, are the AMD cores really better? God damn it! I upgraded to an i5 a year ago and I spent hours on hours looking at benchmarks and everything, but Intel always came out better. I hope they're not pulling that old Pentium IV scam again.

now intel says the meltdown and spectre patches can cause reboot problems in older chips!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reuters

Intel Corp on Thursday said that recently issued patches for flaws in its chips could cause computers using its older Broadwell and Haswell processors to reboot more often than normal and that Intel may need to issue updates to fix the buggy patches.

In a statement on Intel’s website, Navin Shenoy, general manager of the company’s data center group, said Intel had received reports about the issue and was working directly with data center customers to “discuss” the issue.

“We are working quickly with these customers to understand, diagnose and address this reboot issue,” Shenoy said in the statement. “If this requires a revised firmware update from Intel, we will distribute that update through the normal channels.”

Earlier on Thursday, the Wall Street Journal reported that Intel was asking cloud computing customers to hold off installing patches that address new security flaws that affect nearly all of its processors because the patches have bugs of their own. (on.wsj.com/2Eyo7yA)

Intel has identified three issues in updates released over the past week for “microcode,” or firmware, the newspaper reported, citing a confidential document the company had shared with some customers that it had reviewed.

The world’s largest chipmaker confirmed last week that the security issues reported by researchers in the company’s widely used microprocessors could allow hackers to steal sensitive information from computers, phones and other electronic devices.

Intel shares were down about half a percent to $43.20 in after-hours trading after the announcement. Intel shares have lost 4.5 percent since the news of the chip flaws emerged on Jan. 3.

the thing that used to piss me off,
AMD had 64bit well over a year before Intel,
but because Intel and M$ are so corrupt, m$ refused to release a 64bit version of windows until Intel had it's chips ready.
just to stop people buying AMD 64bit chips unless they used Linux.

not using windows anymore, i no longer give a fuck - i hope they try similar tricks again!

Sure but the problem is that now we're finding it's a fundamental problem with x86 (well, superscalar execution), and switching from superscalar to VLIW was a solution.

Quote:

and its just utter nonsense.

Define nonsense if it solves the problem at hand.

Quote:

And Intel is the worst company in the world...

Sure, but that's just repeating the last point without saying why.

Quote:

What you should have wished for is that Micro Channel was the thing to go and not PCI.

And that IBM would have kept the superiority and not Intel. Because whatever IBM did was pretty good.

What Intel does is from a technical standpoint garbage most of the times.
Like adding the +3,3V rail for ATX PSU, AGP and other stuff as well.

Who knew when it first came out? Demand for speed came so fast, interim solutions were needed.

I have my beef against ia64 too but it no speculation = no cache fetch execution crap like what we're seeing now. Alas it too has vendor lock-in which is probably the larger reason why x86-64 was taken (amd would have had to paid huge royalties to make ia64 chips). Sort of the exact problem with MCA, licensing fees for MCA were higher than PCI.

Intel lied about the maximum TDP of their cpus multiple times since the Pentium 4 and again with the first gen core i7, I've tested and i7 920 that said 130W TDP and it reached more than 200W with prime95, the heat sink that came with it couldn't hold the heat for five minutes. But here people always said that AMD cpus were hotter because of the famous silly Tom's hardware video that removed the heat sink while computer was running, who is so stupid to do that? well Tom's hardware reviewers were. Sure Intel paid god money to do that video.

Sure but the problem is that now we're finding it's a fundamental problem with x86 (well, superscalar execution), and switching from superscalar to VLIW was a solution.

No, its not a fundamental x86 Problem, its a Problem with all CPUs.
And that nobody thought about attacking it until now, so no security features to prevent that were implemented - well at Intel at Least, at AMD it seems people thought a bit more but sacrificed performance for that...

Quote:

Originally Posted by eccerr0r

Define nonsense if it solves the problem at hand.

It doesn't because speculative excecution is inevetable if you want performance.

And AFAIR either the last Itanics had something like that or it was planned. So no, id didn't really solve the problem.

As for VLIW: AMD had something like that from the 2000 up to the 6k Series - wasn't that great even in GPUs...

For all the Intel bashers (me included), I just want to remind them all that AMD isn't immune to this either, and isn't the holy grail savior in this mess. Just sayin'. Several of the articles have mentioned that AMD has been less than forthcoming with information for patches, etc. The hypocrisy runs deep.